Legal Case Summary
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988] 2 WLR 1049 [1989] AC 53; [1988] 2 All ER 238; [1987] UKHL 12; (1988) 152 LG Rev 709; (1988) 85(20) LSG 34; (1988) 138 NLJ Rep. 126; (1988) 132 SJ 700
NEGLIGENCE, DUTY OF CARE, POLICE DUTIES, DUTY TO APPREHEND CRIMINALS, LIABILITY TO PERSONS INJURED AS A RESULT OF CRIME
Facts
The plaintiff’s 20-year-old daughter was attacked at night in a city street and died from her injuries. The defendant was a chief constable of the area in which the street was located. The attacker was convicted of the murder of the daughter and had allegedly committed a number of offences of murder against young women in the same area over a period of years prior to the deceased’s murder. The plaintiff claimed damages against the defendant for negligence on grounds that having investigated the previous cases of murder in the area, the police had failed to apprehend the attacker and prevent the murder of her daughter. The Queen’s Bench struck out the writ and statement of claim as disclosing no cause of action. The Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal.
Issues
(1) Do the police owe a general duty of care to apprehend an unknown criminal?
(2) Do the police owe a duty of care to individual members of the public who suffer injuries as a result of the activity of the criminal?
Decision/Outcome
The appeal was dismissed.
(1) The police could be liable in tort to persons who are injured as a direct result of their acts and omissions.
(2) However, the police do not owe a general duty of care to apprehend an unknown criminal.
(3) The police also do not owe a duty of care to individual members of the public who suffer as a result of the criminal’s activity.
(4) The only exception to this rule is where the failure to apprehend the criminal creates an exceptional added risk, different from the general risk from criminal activity to the public at large, so as to establish a sufficient proximity of relationship between the police officers and victims of crime.
The case was significant in setting the precedent for the general duty of care of the police to prevent crime and accidents.
Updated 19 March 2026
This summary accurately describes the decision in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53, which remains a leading authority on police immunity from negligence liability in the investigation and suppression of crime. The core principles stated are still good law.
However, readers should be aware of important subsequent developments. In Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4, the Supreme Court clarified and to some extent refined the Hill principles. The Supreme Court confirmed that the police do not generally owe a duty of care to protect individuals from harm caused by third parties, but emphasised that this is not an independent ‘public policy immunity’ for the police. Instead, ordinary Caparo/Donoghue principles apply: where police positively act to create a danger or assume responsibility to a specific individual, a duty of care may arise. Robinson thus narrowed the scope of the blanket immunity sometimes associated with Hill and is essential reading alongside this case.
Additionally, the Human Rights Act 1998 introduced a parallel avenue for claims under Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights, where operational failures by police may give rise to liability distinct from the common law negligence framework described here. Students should consider these Convention-based claims alongside the common law position.
The article remains a sound introduction to Hill itself, but should be read in conjunction with Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4 for a complete and current understanding of police liability in negligence.
